Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Interatomic force laws that evade dynamic measurement

  • Comment
  • Published:

From Nature Nanotechnology

View current issue Submit your manuscript

A Publisher Correction to this article was published on 09 January 2019

This article has been updated

Abstract

Measurement of the force between two atoms is performed routinely with the atomic force microscope. The shape of this interatomic force law is now found to directly regulate this capability: rapidly varying interatomic force laws, which are common in nature, can corrupt their own measurement.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1: Frequency-modulation force spectroscopy.
Fig. 2: Inflection point test for assessing the ill-posedness of force measurements.

Change history

  • 09 January 2019

    In the version of this Comment originally published, equation (4) was incorrect; see the correction notice for details. This has now been corrected in the online versions of the Comment.

References

  1. Garcia, R. & Perez, R. Surf. Sci. Rep. 47, 197–301 (2002).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Giessibl, F. J. Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 949–983 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Dürig, U. Appl. Phys. Lett. 76, 1203–1205 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Giessibl, F. J. Appl. Phys. Lett. 78, 123–125 (2001).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Sader, J. E. & Jarvis, S. P. Appl. Phys. Lett. 84, 1801–1803 (2004).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Lantz, M. A. et al. Science 291, 2580–2583 (2001).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Sugimoto, Y. et al. Nature 446, 64–67 (2007).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Gross, L., Mohn, F., Moll, N., Liljeroth, P. & Meyer, G. Science 325, 1110–1114 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Gross, L. et al. Science 324, 1428–1431 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Welker, J. & Giessibl, F. J. Science 336, 444–449 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Weymouth, A. J., Hofmann, T. & Giessibl, F. J. Science 343, 1120–1122 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Ternes, M., Lutz, C. P., Hirjibehedin, C. F., Giessibl, F. J. & Heinrich, A. J. Science 319, 1066–1069 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Kawai, S. et al. Science 351, 957–961 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Albrecht, T. R., Grütter, P., Horne, D. & Rugar, D. J. Appl. Phys. 69, 668–673 (1991).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Giessibl, F. J. Phys. Rev. B 56, 16010–16015 (1997).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Phillips, D. L. J. ACM 9, 84–97 (1962).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Tikhonov, A. N. & Arsenin, V. Y. Solutions of Ill Posed Problems (Winston, Washington, 1977).

  18. Hansen, P. C. Rank-Deficient and Discrete Ill-Posed Problems: Numerical Aspects of Linear Inversion (SIAM, Philadelphia, 1998).

  19. Vogel, C. R. Computational Method for Inverse Problems (SIAM, Philadelphia, 2002).

  20. Welker, J., Illek, E. & Giessibl, F. J. Beilstein J. Nanotechnol. 3, 238–248 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Sader, J. E., Hughes, B. D., Huber, F. & Giessibl, F. J. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1709.07571 (2017).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge support from the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence in Exciton Science (CE170100026), the Australian Research Council Grants Scheme and Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft within SFB 689, project A9, and CRC 1277, project A02. The referees are thanked for their comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. ARC Centre of Excellence in Exciton Science, The University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

    John E. Sader

  2. School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

    John E. Sader & Barry D. Hughes

  3. Institute of Experimental and Applied Physics, University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany

    Ferdinand Huber & Franz J. Giessibl

Authors
  1. John E. Sader
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Barry D. Hughes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ferdinand Huber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Franz J. Giessibl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

J.E.S. supervised the project. F.H. and F.J.G. performed initial measurements on the Cu–Cu atomic system in which an anomaly between the matrix and Sader–Jarvis methods was observed. This was communicated to J.E.S. who explored with B.D.H. various theories to explain the anomaly. J.E.S. identified ill-posedness in the inverse problem, formulated the inflection point test and performed all calculations. F.H. and F.J.G. devised and performed further measurements using the Cu–CO system to validate the inflection point test. All authors analysed the data and contributed to the writing of the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John E. Sader.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sader, J.E., Hughes, B.D., Huber, F. et al. Interatomic force laws that evade dynamic measurement. Nature Nanotech 13, 1088–1091 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41565-018-0277-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41565-018-0277-x

  • Springer Nature Limited

Search

Navigation